The judgment a serious comment on the role of the government in dealing with dissent and protest
Waquar Hasan | Clarion India
NEW DELHI – Legal experts and lawyers on Tuesday lauded Delhi High Court for granting bail to three anti-CAA activists arrested under stringent Anti-terror law called Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). They called the judgment ‘landmark’ which, according to them, would pave the way for the release of other activists.
On Tuesday, a bench of Justices Sidharth Mridul and Anup Jairam Bhambhani granted bail to Asif Iqbal Tanha, Devangana Kalita and Natasha Narwal held in the Delhi riots conspiracy case.
The bail orders are a significant development in the case where Delhi Police have invoked terror charges accusing them of hatching a conspiracy and creating roadblocks during the mass protests against Citizenship Amendment Act in northeast Delhi. The clash of pro-CAA mob with anti-CAA protests raked up anti-Muslim communal violence killing 53 people in February 2020.
About the charges invoked against the accused, the court did not find any evidence against the activists for inciting violence which make up terror activities. It observed: “In its anxiety to suppress dissent, in the mind of the State, the line between constitutionally guaranteed right to protest and terrorist activity seems to be getting somewhat blurred. If this mindset gains traction, it would be a sad day for democracy.”
Talking to Clarion India, Prominent human rights lawyer Colin Gonslaves termed the judgment “landmark” and “fantastic” which will pave the way for the release of all those activists arrested under UAPA in any part of the country.
Gonslaves said the court observed that there is no evidence against those accused for substantiating charges invoked against them. Therefore, the imprisonment of the activists was completely untenable. Yet, the Delhi Police kept them in jail for one year. He asked who will compensate for the time they were kept in the jail without any evidence. He demanded compensation for their unjustified imprisonment.
Granting bail to Narwal, the court said: “We can discern no specific or particular allegation, much less any material to bear-out the allegation, that the appellant incited violence, what to talk of committing a terrorist act or a conspiracy or act preparatory to the commission of a terrorist act as understood in the UAPA.”
Fuzail Ayyubi, a Supreme Court lawyer, said that the judgment is a criticism of the state and the authorities and a serious comment on the role of the government in dealing with dissent and protest.
“This judgment reflects the sentiments of the court and should be seen as a positive criticism of the authorities. They should take the advice of the court and should try to improve upon their conduct. The court has reflected itself in the light of law and the constitution. In paragraph 35-36, there is serious comment on the prevailing situation,” said Ayyubi referring to the court’s advice to the state to differentiate between terror activities and protests.
He also noted that since the judgment has been delivered by a bench of two judges, it will have bearing on other cases and the judicial processes in the entire country. Since the judgment was positive criticism of the state, Ayyubi hopes that the government may try to improve upon its conduct according to the judgment.
Another Supreme Court lawyer Sanjay Hegde also feels that the judgment is landmark which will have implications for the invocation of the UAPA against the dissent and protests.
“I think the judgment is likely to be a landmark judgment against overbroad application of the UAPA to cases of mere dissent or protest. It will have major ramifications upon the interpretation of Sections 15 to 17 of the UAPA and the police will have to rethink their casual approach, of invoking these sections against all and sundry. I hope the young students are released soon as they have suffered much already,” said Hegde in a statement to Clarion India over the judgment.
